Are we being SCREWED ALREADY by the ELECTORAL COLLEGE?

[yuiyoshida]

[I_UndergroundPanther]

1. People running the electoral college are

Overwhelmingly wealthy,republican business types. Thats who counts the votes for the college. Fuckers.

[onenote]

2. You and the OP seem confused about the Electoral College.

Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2020, 10:10 AM - Edit history (1)

At the outset, let me be clear that I strongly support replacing the EC with a national popular election. If we elect governors based on a statewide popular vote, rather than by assigning "electors" to each county, we ought to elect presidents the same way

But, the EC is not "run" by "overwhelmingly wealthy republican business types" who "count the votes." Each party has a slate of electors. I guarantee you that the slate of electors put up by the Democratic party in each state is not "overwhelmingly republican business types." Moreover, while the legal issue is not resolved, most states bind the electors to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in their state, so for the most part the "voting" done by the electors is little more than a ministerial act. And the electors don't "count" the votes. They are counted by a joint session of Congress -- in 2020, that will be a group made up of around 282 Democrats/Independents and 249 Republicans.

Also, the video accompanying the OP suggests that the members of the EC convene in Washington in person to vote. That is not, nor has it ever been the case. Per the Constitution, each state's EC members convene in their own state and the result are sealed and transmitted to Washington to be opened and counted as described above.

Finally, if you want to believe that Democrats can't overcome the EC system, you're going to believe that. But elections in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012 suggest you're mistaken.

[PRETZEL]

3. My wife and I were talking about this last nite,

She's a popular vote proponent and I'm an EC proponent.

In the course of the conversation where I was defending why I feel the EC is better than the popular vote, that being that it would then be an election decided by only the most populous states and eliminates the voice of the smaller states, she gave me that look and asked what ultimately became a very interesting question,

Why can't it be 1 state, 1 vote? In order to become President, you need to win a majority of states.

After thinking about it for a few, I agreed with her.

[dsc]

6. because that is the worst idea ever

Wyoming has fewer votes than the typical congressional seat does, probably all congressional seats but certainly all but a very few. This would give Wyoming the same power in picking the president as California which has 53 congressional seats and thus is over 53 times more populous. That is insane. It is bad enough that they get that in the Senate but to give them that in an entire branch is beyond a bad idea.

[PRETZEL]

9. I understand that

and that disparity in population is exactly why California has the representation they have,

As a counter to Wyoming, wouldn't the same argument be true for smaller states like De, RI. Even though they're much more densly populated, they only 1 or 2 congressional districts. Should they not have an equal say as to whom they want to be their President?

[Hortensis]

10. As Onenote says. Seeking information and avoiding

the manipulation of ignorance and fostering of paranoia is actually good for our health.

Stress and anxiety weaken the immune system and leave people vulnerable to epidemics like COVID and Republican government.

[obamanut2012]

5. What???

No.

[Bucky]

4. Yes, the electoral college gives a natural advantage to the Republican Party.

from this Quora thread I found out in 2016:
- Trump states made up 58% of the US population and Clinton states made up about 42% of the population. This of course reiterates that Trump "won" by narrrowly winning swing states
- based on US Senate representation, 44% of the population has two Democratic senators and 41% of the population has two Republican senators
- 52% of the US population has a Democratic governor. But 56% of the US population as a Republican-controlled state legislature.

Now Trump is more geographically polarizing then most Republicans; and that's an overall trend that may just get worse in the future. But these numbers do suggest that Republicans enjoy a slight over-representation in the electoral college. On the other hand, the fact that three of the five biggest states are practically slam-dunk democratic wins in any election and only one of the top five is dependably a Republican win, offsets the Republican advantage among smaller low infrastructure states in the south and non-coastal west.

IOW, it's still all about those Great Lakes purple states.

[HarlanPepper]

7. You hear that everyone? We're already screwed so let's just give up.

The videos are defeatist claptrap.

[Hortensis]

11. Thanks for posting. The OP title signaled their pernicious slant,

so I didn't bother to listen.

[Happy Hoosier]

8. Our entire electoral system is designed to allow minority rule.

And so we see it. Democrats in both the House and Senate represent far more votes than the Republicans, and of course, more people voted for Clinton than Trump, courtesy of the Electoral College.

Gerrymandering means that even the Democratic majority in the House is rather smaller than it "should" be.